Facts

Charles Emile Tady, admitted to practice in 1950, had been on voluntary inactive status since January 1, 1982. While inactive, he provided legal assistance to his wife, Barbara Tady, in two probate matters pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court. In correspondence to another attorney, Tady referred to his wife as his “client” and invoked Rule 2-100 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, instructing the attorney to cease direct communication with her. He also stated an intention to seek statutory attorney’s fees in the probate proceeding.

The Office of Trial Counsel charged him with practicing law while not entitled to do so, in violation of Business and Professions Code sections 6068(a), 6103, and 6125. Tady moved to dismiss, arguing that assisting his wife was not the practice of law and that the conduct was too minor for formal discipline, suggesting it should be disposed of by admonition under State Bar Rule 415.

Findings and Discussion

The Review Department held that Tady’s alleged actions — referring to his wife as a client, sending professional correspondence to another lawyer on her behalf, and expressing intent to request statutory fees — went beyond mere private advice and constituted the practice of law within the meaning of section 6125. The panel rejected Tady’s contention that the notice failed to allege a serious offense, reaffirming that the Office of Trial Counsel has discretion to file formal charges even in cases that might otherwise qualify for admonition.

The court noted that members on inactive status may not practice law in California, and such conduct, if proven, constitutes a disciplinable violation under section 6068(a). The panel dismissed the charge under section 6103 because it applies only to disobedience of court orders, and Tady’s inactive status was voluntary, not court-ordered.

Although the Review Department did not reach the merits of whether Tady’s conduct warranted actual discipline, it emphasized that appearing or acting as an advocate — even for a family member — is prohibited when the attorney is not entitled to practice law. The opinion compared this restriction to similar prohibitions on judges providing legal services under Canon 4G of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Sanctions Table

Holding and Significance

The Review Department reaffirmed that inactive members of the State Bar are prohibited from engaging in any conduct constituting the practice of law, including acting as an advocate or using legal correspondence on behalf of another person. The decision also clarified that the State Bar has discretion to pursue formal discipline even for minor or technical violations, and that section 6103 applies only to violations of explicit court orders. The case serves as guidance that familial relationships do not excuse unauthorized practice of law by an inactive attorney.

Tags